Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial of fistula vs. graft arteriovenous vascular access in older adults with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis: the AV access trial

Arteriovenous access creation and hazards of hospitalization and death in patients starting hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests an overestimation of the benefits associated with arteriovenous (AV) fistula versus graft in certain populations. We assessed hazards of all-cause and cause-specific hospitalization and death associated with AV access type in patients who started hemodialysis with a catheter in France, overall and by subgroups of age, sex and comorbidities.

METHODS

We performed a target trial emulation including patients who initiated hemodialysis with a catheter from 2010 through 2018 and were followed by the REIN Registry. We identified first-created fistula or graft through the French national health-administrative database. We used joint frailty models to deal with recurrent hospitalizations and potential informative censoring by death, and inverse probability weighting to account for confounding.

RESULTS

From the 18 800 patients included (mean age 68 ± 15 years, 35% women), 5% underwent AV graft creation first. The weighted hazard ratio (wHR) of all-cause hospitalization associated with graft was 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15], that of vascular access-related hospitalization was 1.43 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.55), and those of cardiovascular- and infection-related hospitalizations were 1.14 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.26) and 1.11 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.28), respectively. Results were consistent for most subgroups, except that the highest hazard of all-cause, cardiovascular- and infection-related hospitalizations with graft was blunted in patients with comorbidities (i.e. diabetes, wHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1.10, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.26; and 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients starting hemodialysis with a catheter, AV graft creation is associated with increased hazard of vascular access-related hospitalizations compared with fistula. This may not be the case for death or other causes of hospitalization.

Shared decision making in elderly patients with kidney failure

'Elderly' is most commonly defined as an individual aged 65 years or older. However, this definition fails to account for the differences in genetics, lifestyle and overall health that contribute to significant heterogeneity among the elderly beyond chronological age. As the world population continues to age, the prevalence of chronic diseases, including chronic kidney disease (CKD), is increasing and CKD frequently progresses to kidney failure. Moreover, frailty represents a multidimensional clinical entity highly prevalent in this population, which needs to be adequately assessed to inform and support medical decisions. Selecting the optimal treatment pathway for the elderly and frail kidney failure population, be it haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or conservative kidney management, is complex because of the presence of comorbidities associated with low survival rates and impaired quality of life. Management of these patients should involve a multidisciplinary approach including doctors from various specialties, nurses, psychologists, dieticians and physiotherapists. Studies are mostly retrospective and observational, lacking adjustment for confounders or addressing selection and indication biases, making it difficult to use these data to guide treatment decisions. Throughout this review we discuss the difficulty of making a one-size-fits-all recommendation for the clinical needs of older patients with kidney failure. We advocate that a research agenda for optimization of the critical issues we present in this review be implemented. We recommend prospective studies that address these issues, and systematic reviews incorporating the complementary evidence of both observational and interventional studies. Furthermore, we strongly support a shared decision-making process matching evidence with patient preferences to ensure that individualized choices are made regarding dialysis vs conservative kidney management, dialysis modality and optimal vascular access.

Quality assurance in surgical trials of arteriovenous grafts for haemodialysis: A systematic review, a narrative exploration and expert recommendations

BACKGROUND

Introducing new procedures and challenging established paradigms requires well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCT). However, RCT in surgery present unique challenges with much of treatment tailored to the individual patient circumstances, refined by experience and limited by organisational factors. There has been considerable debate over the outcomes of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) compared to AVF, but any differences may reflect differing practice and potential variability. It is essential, therefore, when considering an RCT of a novel surgical procedure or device that quality assurance (QA) is defined for both the new approach and the comparator. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the QA standards performed in RCT of AVG using a multi-national, multi-disciplinary approach and propose an approach for future RCT.

METHOD

The methods of this have been previously registered (PROSPERO: CRD420234284280) and published. In summary, a four-stage review was performed: identification of RCT of AVG, initial review, multidisciplinary appraisal of QA methods and reconciliation. QA measures were sought in four areas - generic, credentialing, standardisation and monitoring, with data abstracted by a multi-national, multi-speciality review body.

RESULTS

QA in RCT involving AVG in all four domains is highly variable, often sub-optimally described and has not improved over the past three decades. Few RCT established or defined a pre-RCT level of experience, none documented a pre-trial education programme, or had minimal standards of peri-operative management, no study had a defined pre-trial monitoring programme, and none assessed technical performance.

CONCLUSION

QA in RCT is a relatively new area that is expanding to ensure evidence is reliable and reproducible. This review demonstrates that QA has not previously been detailed, but can be measured in surgical RCT of vascular access, and that a four-domain approach can easily be implemented into future RCT.

The reasons for comparative effectiveness clinical trials of arteriovenous fistula versus graft strategy in older adults on hemodialysis with a catheter

Clinicians and patients are guided by observational studies to make one of the most consequential decisions for patients with advanced kidney disease: the selection of the "right" hemodialysis vascular access. More than a decade ago, a call for randomized clinical trials was made to equitably compare clinical outcomes between arteriovenous (AV) fistulas (AVFs) and AV grafts (AVGs). Mounting evidence suggests that trade-offs between AVF- and AVGrelated outcomes are context dependent. In this article, we summarize four streams of evidence that collectively underpin the burden of equipoise between the two types of AV access in older adults with comorbidities who are on hemodialysis with a central venous catheter.